Northwestern's Statement on Coach Termination Lacks Compassion

Northwestern University’s president published a statement explaining the decision to fire the head football coach after investigating claims about hazing. The message could be an example of persuasion—and either good or bad news, depending on your perspective.

Taking responsibility up front, President Michael Schill put his name at the top of the statement, which was posted online. His accountability for the decision is reinforced in his first line: “This afternoon, I informed Head Football Coach Pat Fitzgerald that he was being relieved of his duties effective immediately.” Later, he writes, “While I am appreciative of the feedback and considered it in my decision-making, [need a semi-colon here] ultimately, the decision to originally suspend Coach Fitzgerald was mine and mine alone, as is the decision to part ways with him.”

Schill convinces his audience—primarily the Northwestern community—by showing the pervasiveness of hazing (“systemic dating back many years.”) and by providing examples of acts (“The hazing included forced participation, nudity and sexualized acts of a degrading nature, in clear violation of Northwestern policies and values”).

But he minimizes the impact (“I am grateful that—to my knowledge—no student suffered physical injury as a result of these behaviors”) and defends himself (“I only recently learned many of the details”). His statement seems to lack compassion towards those affected by the hazing. Complaints must show that people were negatively impacted. Where is that acknowledgement in the statement?

Demonstrating courage and leadership, Schill does acknowledge controversy about the decision. He describes the coach’s positive impact on many, but identifies a replacement and encourages moving forward. Some say the decision is long overdue, with reports of racism dating back to the 2000’s. Schill doesn’t mention that.

The statement ends with misplaced gratitude, which feels like a last-minute add-on. The nod to the Board chair would have been more appropriate in the second paragraph, where he describes input from the chair and others. Lobbing off that sentence, the ending is strong: “While today is a difficult day, I take solace in knowing that what we stand for endures.”

Image source.

Dispute Over "Thumbs-Up" Emoji

From a recent legal contract case, students can discuss what it means to text the “thumbs-up” emoji. A grain purchaser sent a contract to a farm supplier with terms for buying flax at $17 per bushel. The supplier responded to the signed contract in a text message with the emoji, and a judge ruled that the contract was “at least verbally struck.”

Trouble started when the supplier didn’t ship the flax, which quickly increased in price to $41 per bushel. Now, the supplier has to pay $82,000 for breach of contract.

I can see students running into similar trouble with job offers and informal communication. In this case, the purchaser said the “thumbs-up” was no different from other text responses they received from the farmer in the past: “ok,” “yup,” or “looks good.” The defense used a slippery slope argument:

[A]llowing a simple 👍 emoji to signify identity and acceptance would open up the flood gates to allow all sorts of cases coming forward asking for interpretations as to what various different emojis mean – for example what does a 👊 emoji mean or a 🤝 emoji mean, etc. Counsel argues the courts will be inundated with all kinds of cases if this court finds that the 👍 emoji can take the place of a signature.

The judge didn’t agree, perhaps perceiving the argument as a fallacy. Students may want to use the “thumbs-up”—and other emojis—more judiciously for business communication. Legal contracts might call for more formal acknowledgements, such as e-signatures.

Image source.

Retracted Behavioral Science Studies

The process of discovering fraud—and the aftermath—in a Harvard Business School professor’s work is a lesson in evidence, data integrity, and ethics for business communication students. I’ve admired Francesca Gino’s work and cited her research on learning and authenticity in Building Leadership Character. But three of her studies are being retracted, and Harvard has placed her on administrative leave.

News outlets love headlines like NPR’s, “Harvard professor who studies dishonesty is accused of falsifying data,” and, this almost identical one from The Guardian, “Harvard professor who studies honesty accused of falsifying data in studies.” Fair enough, but her work is far broader—more about management decision making than honesty or ethics.

On their blog Data Colada, researchers describe how they discovered falsified data. Their sleuthing involves a fascinating dive into hidden Excel files that, the detectives say, proved that data was* moved and changed. Students might be interested to learn how much data Excel stores.

As examples of crisis communication, responses to the news are mixed. To date, Harvard hasn’t commented on reports or the decision to place Gino on leave. Announced in a blurb, at least one of her scheduled presentations has been cancelled. In a Chronicle article, collaborators and other behavioral scientists expressed their concern and/or defended their own work. Rational folks suggested waiting until more information is revealed, and work is ongoing to document the origins of all study data. Gino wrote nothing about the controversy on her own website, but she did post a short statement on LinkedIn. Her voice is reserved but clear, expressing humility and gratitude—both appropriate for the situation and early findings.

* Random: I use data as a singular noun, which is more common in business. This article explains my reasons well.

PGA Commissioner Address Criticism Directly

Golf tournaments PGA and LIV, which is backed by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, announced a merger and faced backlash. Part of the controversy is how the decision was communicated: primarily during a CNBC interview of LIV Governor Yasir Al-Rumayyan and PGA Commissioner Jay Monahan.

Players complained openly, shown here. As we teach business communication students, a thoughtful communication plan could prevent negative reactions—at least about how the news is delivered. Players should have been informed before any public announcement was made. Even in the CNBC video title, the news is called a “surprise deal.”

Monahan addressed personal criticism directly. In his statements, he demonstrates courage by acknowledging a perceived lack of integrity:

I recognize that people are going to call me a hypocrite, Anytime I said anything, I said it with the information that I had at that moment, and I said it based on someone that's trying to compete for the PGA Tour and our players. I accept those criticisms. But circumstances do change. I think that in looking at the big picture and looking at it this way, that's what got us to this point.

Monahan loosely acknowledged the impact on tour players, but he could have demonstrated more compassion, particularly for those who had turned down generous Saudi money to stick with the PGA:

This is an awful lot to ask them to digest, and this is a significant change for us in the direction that we were going down. We just realized that we were better off together than we were fighting or apart, and by thinking about the game at large and eliminating a lot of the friction that's been out there and doing this in a way where we can move forward and grow the PGA Tour.

Of course, Monahan’s explanation didn’t convince everyone that the merger is the right decision. A news release on the PGA website, which claims that the merger is “for the benefit of all stakeholders,” is another example for students to analyze.

AI Risk Communications

Two new messages about risks associated with AI are good examples for students to analyze.

Center for AI Safety published a short, joint statement about AI risks. The introduction, which explains the statement, is longer than the 22-word message itself. Unlike a longer statement published two months ago to encouraged a pause, this one is bold and focused:

Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.

The authors use analogies as emotional appeal to persuade their audiences. They also rely credibility, with more than 350 distinguished signatories, including current AI leaders and two Turing Award AI pioneers.

The second message is a blog post written by OpenAI founders to provide guidance for regulators and others wanting to mitigate risk. Titled, Governance of Superintelligence, the post distinguishes between current AI technology and the next generation. The authors’ strategy is to create a sense of urgency about an “existential” threat but prevent overregulation of current technology (like OpenAI, of course). In this statement, they use the analogies of nuclear energy and synthetic biology. The latter might be a better parallel than the pandemic, although a pandemic is more current and may be more universally understood.

Students can edit the governance post for clarity and conciseness. They’ll find overuse of “there is/are” and an abundance of “it,” for example, in this last sentence:

Second, we believe it would be unintuitively risky and difficult to stop the creation of superintelligence. Because the upsides are so tremendous, the cost to build it decreases each year, the number of actors building it is rapidly increasing, and it’s inherently part of the technological path we are on, stopping it would require something like a global surveillance regime, and even that isn’t guaranteed to work. So we have to get it right.

ChatGPT's Legal Trouble

ChatGPT might pass the bar exam, but it created havoc in a lawsuit. As we tell our business communication students, authors are responsible for their content, and that applies to lawyers who submit legal briefs.

In his documentation against Avianca Airlines, Steven Schwartz included six previous court decisions that didn’t exist. As we know, ChatGPT is a large language model and cannot be trusted to, for example, cite legal cases; it “hallucinates.”

Schwartz now faces sanctions. The American Bar Association requires competence, which includes supervising other lawyers’ and nonlawyers’ (including nonhuman) work. Another issue is confidentiality. Although some legal AI tools keep client data confidential, ChatGPT does not. In a court response, Schwartz apologized, saying he didn’t realize ChatGPT could give false information (!) and that he “had no intent to deceive this Court nor the defendant.”

Despite ChatGPT’s failings in this situation, AI can benefit law firms, as the Bar Association explains. And yet, law remains one of the top fields expected to be impacted by AI, as this NY Times article describes:

One new study, by researchers at Princeton University, the University of Pennsylvania and New York University, concluded that the industry most exposed to the new A.I. was “legal services.” Another research report, by economists at Goldman Sachs, estimated that 44 percent of legal work could be automated. Only the work of office and administrative support jobs, at 46 percent, was higher.

This case is a good example for students to know—a lesson in accountability for their own work.

{Random: I’m surprised to see that the NY Times include periods after “A” and “I.” This seems to be a conversative approach losing ground. “AI” is easily recognized these days. Then again, the Times was a slow in dropping the hyphen in email, in my opinion.)

Shell Protester and Company Comms

Protester and Shell Oil communications illustrate rhetorical devices, reasoning, and evidence. Dutch activist investor Follow This, which owns Shell stock, pushed for a shareholder resolution to reduce carbon emissions by 2030. As protesters stormed the annual meeting, they illustrated rhetorical devices communication faculty might teach as a way to appeal to emotion and make speech more memorable. “Hit the Road Jack,” and “Go to hell, Shell, and don’t you come back no more” illustrate an allusion to a popular song and assonance, or vowel rhyming.

On page 8 of the annual investor meeting notice, Shell executives explain three reasons for shareholders to reject the resolution:

• Against shareholders’ interests: The company claims it would give up profits, but protesters say the company has had record profits (and, I suppose, can give some up?). The company argues that the proposition “would not help to mitigate global warming,” but evidence is not provided.

• Against good governance: The company argues that the proposition is “unclear, generic, and would create confusion as to Board and shareholder accountabilities.” With criteria reasoning, executives say that Shell already has a shareholder-approved strategy in place, so this new guidance would conflict. They also claim that any change is merely advisory and that “the legal responsibility for approving or objecting to Shell’s strategy lies with the Board and Executive Committee.”

• Negative consequences for customers: This section includes causal reasoning that hasty shifts “could cause disruptions to the world’s energy system, with the risk of shortages and high energy prices.” Skeptics might say this is a slippery slope fallacy. Then, the next two confusing paragraphs have footnotes to Shell's own site (not an external source):

  • As an energy user, Shell has set a bold target to reduce absolute emissions from its operations (Scope 1 and 2), by 50% by 2030, compared with its 2016 reference year. Shell delivered a 30% reduction at the end of 2022, compared with 2016 on a net basis. Global energy-related carbon emissions increased by around 4% in the same period. [A]

  • As an energy provider, Shell has set a target to reduce the net carbon intensity of the energy products it sells by 20% by 2030. It has achieved a 3.8% reduction since 2016. Our analysis, using data from the International Energy Agency, shows the net carbon intensity of the global energy system fell by around 2% over that same time. [B]

On its website, Follow This announces that the proposition was voted down. However, in a press release, the group emphasizes a relatively high percentage of supporting votes: “One-fifth of Shell shareholders maintain demand for emissions reductions to meet Paris by voting for Follow This climate resolution.” The group founder puts this figure in context, a common persuasive tactic: “Considering that up to 99% of shareholders voted along with the board on the other 25 resolutions, 20% of support and a significant number of abstentions in spite of a negative board recommendation clearly indicates shareholder discontent.” As an example of synecdoche, the group refers to “Paris,” meaning the U.N. Paris Agreement to limit average temperature increases.

Students will find other examples of rhetorical devices and methods used to persuade in both organizations’ communications.

OpenAI CEO Sets a Different Tone

In contrast to how SVB's former CEO handled his U.S. government testimony this week, OpenAI's CEO demonstrated humility, a willingness to learn and an acknowledgment that he doesn’t know everything. Sam Altman talked about the incredible potential of large language models, yet admitted risks. He asked for "regulatory intervention," which, to be fair, Mark Zuckerberg mentioned when he testified, but the tone of this US Senate committee hearing was entirely different from previous tech companies' interactions with regulators.

In his opening statement (starting at 20:45), Altman said, "But as this technology advances, we understand that people are anxious about how it could change the way we live." Later, Altman said, "I think if this technology goes wrong, it can go quite wrong . . . we want to be vocal about that," and, "We want to work with the government to prevent that from happening."

Senator Richard Blumenthal, who chaired the committee panel, also demonstrated humility by admitting “mistakes of the past”:

"Our goal is to demystify and hold accountable those new technologies to avoid some of the mistakes of the past. Congress failed to meet the moment on social media.”

Unlike the E.U., which has already proposed AI legislation, skeptics say U.S. government officials’ limited knowledge makes moving quickly unlikely. But admission of their failings and current risks could inspire action, although it’s unclear how that might happen.

SVB's Former CEO Deflects Blame for Bank Failure

Silicon Valley Bank’s former CEO, Gregory Becker, testified before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee (starting at 18:55). As the New York Times reported, Becker “pointed the finger at pretty much everybody but himself.”

Becker blamed the bank’s demise on regulators for failing to manage inflation and interest rates, the media for raising questions about the bank’s financials, and depositers for withdrawing money in a panic. Critics blame SVB management for the high percentage of uninsured deposits, the lack of client diversification, and the lack of liquidity because of overinvestment in long-term bonds and other government securities.

In his opening statement, Becker gave a nonapology; he didn’t acknowledge any wrongdoing. Notice the subject of the following sentence and the pronoun reference for “this”:

"The takeover of SVB has been personally and professionally devastating, and I am truly sorry for how this has impacted SVB’s employees, clients and shareholders."

In other words, he apologizes for how the takeover—the regulators’ actions—affected people. The Wall Street Journal ran this headline: “'I'm Truly Sorry': Former Silicon Valley Bank CEO Apologizes for Failure.” But he didn’t apologize for his failure.

The word of the day—and of the past three years—is “unprecendented,” which Becker used three times in his 5.5-minute speech. His strategy was to persuade senators that the failure was out of his control. In his written statement, we see “unprecendented” six times.

Senators were unforgiving, and we’re left to wonder whether they would have been more sympathetic if Becker had taken any responsibility for the damage. A CNN article reported harsh critism from both Republicans and Democrats, with one saying, “It sounds a lot like my dog ate my homework.”

Becker’s testimony is a good example for students to see a lack of accountability and humility, or learning from mistakes. He uses crisis communication strategies, such as distancing himself from the failure, but his testimony didn’t reflect well on the bank or on himself.

Boarding School Admits Responsibility in Suicide

In a written statement one year after a student’s death by suicide, a New Jersey boarding school took responsibility for its role and committed to action. Some call the admission “rare,” which is true, and “courageous,” or taking action despite risks, and I disagree. The statement announces a settlement with Jack Reid’s parents, so its liability is already determined. In other words, administrators suffer few risks by confessing what is obvious.

Statements at the time of his death are typical. After a trigger warning pop-up, we see condolences, vigils, counseling, and other support, and a separate message to alumni.

The recent message, under a tab labeled “Anniversary Statement,” describes a clearer picture about the circumstances surrounding Reid’s death. He was bullied, the victim of a false rumor. News reports say he was called a rapist and was subjected to cruelty as a result.

Providing specific examples of how the school failed Reid and the community is rare in settlement messages and a big step forward. Although the statement isn’t signed by anyone in particular, which would have been a nice touch, the school identifies specific missed opportunities in the third and fourth paragraphs.

The statement is a good model. During the bullying, school officials lacked both accountability and compassion for what was happening to Reid, and they admit this failure. The school is already vulnerable, so why not allow leaders to admit vulnerability. The statement also expresses humility by identifying wrongdoings and the willingness to learn from mistakes.

But is it courageous? The specific examples may open opportunities for more criticism, which is a risk, but the lack of action at the time is fairly obvious. Despite Reid’s complaints, little or nothing was done. A lead bully was suspended but for unrelated reasons. Then, all students saw him return to school—back to Reid’s same dorm. Reid died by suicide that night.

---

We experienced the tragic loss of Jack Reid on April 30, 2022 and through great sorrow, came together in meaningful ways as a community. The Special Oversight Committee of the Board of Trustees conducted a five-month review of the circumstances surrounding Jack’s death by suicide, and produced a summary of findings that were shared with the community in December 2022.

April 30, 2023

The Lawrenceville School and William and Elizabeth Reid, parents of Jack Reid, have reached an agreement in the wake of the tragic loss of Jack, a Fourth Former in Dickinson House, who died by suicide on April 30, 2022. Jack was universally regarded as an extremely kind and good-hearted young man, with an unwavering sense of social and civic responsibility and a bright future. We continue to mourn this loss.

As we seek to improve as a community, we have examined our role and take responsibility for what we could have done differently. Lawrenceville’s top priority is the physical, social, and emotional health, safety, and wellbeing of our students. We recognize that in Jack’s case, we fell tragically short of these expectations.

Jack was a victim of bullying and other forms of cruel behavior at Lawrenceville over the course of a year, including in the form of false rumors in person and online. When these behaviors were brought to the attention of the School, there were steps that the School should in hindsight have taken but did not, including the fact that the School did not make a public or private statement that it investigated and found rumors about Jack that were untrue. There also were circumstances in which the involvement of an adult would have made a difference.

In addition, on April 30, when the student who previously had been disciplined for bullying Jack was expelled for an unrelated violation of School rules, the School allowed him to return to Dickinson House largely unsupervised where students gathered, including some who said harsh words about Jack. School administrators did not notify or check on Jack. That night, Jack took his life, telling a friend that he could not go through this again. The School acknowledges that bullying and unkind behavior, and actions taken or not taken by the School, likely contributed to Jack’s death.

In the ensuing months, the School undertook an investigation of the circumstances leading up to Jack's death. Reflecting on those findings, and discussing them with the Reid family, we acknowledge that more should have been done to protect Jack.

Today's multi-faceted settlement with the Reids is aimed at honoring Jack, taking appropriate responsibility, and instituting meaningful changes that will support the School’s aspirations of becoming a model for anti-bullying and student mental health.

Over the past year, we have focused on four broad lines of action: training and educational programs, House culture and healthy socializing, the structure of our Dean of Students office and disciplinary protocols, and general health and wellness. In addition to efforts undertaken over the past 12 months, we are planning the following:

• Lawrenceville will contract with a specialist on school bullying to help construct policies and training to identify and effectively address the behaviors that lead to bullying and cyberbullying.

• Lawrenceville will contribute to the Jack Reid Foundation, a foundation established by the Reid family focused on education and prevention of bullying.

• Lawrenceville will hire a Dean of Campus Wellbeing. This will be an endowed position focused on the variety of student mental health issues educational institutions face.

• Lawrenceville faculty, professional staff, and students will participate in trainings and workshops to raise awareness and promote better understanding of adolescent mental health.

• Consulting with outside experts as needed, Lawrenceville will continue to review and make improvements to its emergency response protocols and crisis response plans; it similarly will review the safety training it provides to faculty and staff to assure it aligns with best practices.

• Lawrenceville will make a recurring gift to a mental health organization to support research and best practices for suicide prevention in school environments.

There is, of course, nothing that will ever make up for the tragedy of losing this promising and beloved young man. But it is the hope of all of us that Jack's memory is honored.

Bed Bath & Beyond Communicates Bankruptcy

After years of closing stores, Bed Bath & Beyond communicated its decision to file for bankruptcy and what it means for customers. Messages follow typical bad-news announcements.

A short message on its website, shown here, thanks loyal customers. Perhaps the most important part is that stores are still open: the company needs to sell its remaining inventory.

An email to customers, below, conveys the news upfront, expresses appreciation, and answers questions customers might have. In three of the four bullets, we see “we expect,” communicating uncertainty that might be off-putting to customers with outstanding merchandise, gift cards, or orders. But bullets are clear (use those coupons fast!), and the separate section for registries make sense for worried brides and grooms and shower planners.

This is a sad ending for a former Fortune 500 company with 1,530 stores in 2019. Despite changing consumer preferences and other issues, critics say the company’s demise was caused, in part, by bad management decisions. But none of that matters now; the time for accountability is long gone. Instead, as they should, messages focus on the nostalgia that, for better or worse, kept Bed Bath afloat longer than some expected.

---

To Our Valued Customers:

Earlier today, Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. filed for voluntary Chapter 11 protection.

We appreciate that our customers have trusted us through the most important milestones in their lives – from going to college, to getting married, to settling into a new home, to having a baby – and we wanted to reach out to you to explain what this means.

Our stores are open and serving customers. However, we have initiated a process to wind down operations.

What This Means for Our Customers

We wanted to make you aware that several of our programs and policies may be changing soon. As of today:

• We expect to process returns and exchanges in accordance with our usual policies until May 24, 2023, for items purchased prior to April 23, 2023

• We expect Gift Cards, Gift Certificates, and Loyalty Certificates will be accepted through May 8, 2023

• We will no longer accept coupons or Welcome Rewards+ discounts beginning April 26, 2023

• We expect all in-stock orders placed online both prior and after our bankruptcy filing to be fulfilled at this time

Registry
Your registry data is safe. You can still view your registry at this time. We expect to partner with an alternative platform where you will be able to transfer your data and complete your registry. We will provide details in the coming days.

We Are Here for You
For Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and additional information, please visit
https://restructuring.ra.kroll.com/bbby. Stakeholders with questions can email
BBBYInfo@ra.kroll.com or call at (833) 570-5355 or (646) 440-4806 if calling from outside the U.S. or Canada.

Thank you for your loyalty and support.

Bed Bath & Beyond | buybuy BABY

PRIVACY POLICYUNSUBSCRIBEVIEW ONLINE

Please add bedbathandbeyond@email.bedbathandbeyond.com to your address book.
Please do not reply to this email. Contact us here.
©2022 Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved.
Corporate Headquarters - 650 Liberty Avenue, Union, New Jersey 07083

Southwest Comms and Disruption

After technical issues that caused outsized delays in December, Southwest communicated little, trying to downplay more service disruptions yesterday. The first tweet, shown here, responded to a customer complaint. The second tweet accurately describes the issue as a “pause,” a term a New York Times article repeats, based on the time period. But the impact on passengers was significant: 1,820 flights (43% of the airline’s daily flights) were delayed. A silly gif with moving clip art appeared in the second message for no reason.

On the Southwest website, a short “Operational Update” tries to shift blame to a supplier: “a vendor-supplied firewall went down and connection to some operational data was unexpectedly lost.” Later, a “Travel Advisory” apologized to customers and gave options for no-fee rebooking and standing by—and a list of phone numbers for assistance.

Critics say Southwest’s “outdated” technology might cause more problems until a systemwide upgrade is possible. One communication strategy is to manage customer expectations in the meantime. Telling people to expect delays might ease some pain; of course, that could lead to fewer bookings, but that may likely happen anyway. Passengers will need to be reminded about other benefits of traveling with Southwest.

Fox News Takes Little Responsibility in Settlement Statement

Before the trial began, Fox News settled the Dominion Voting Systems defamation lawsuit and published the vaguest possible statement, below. In few words, the company made no apology and took little responsibility for making false statements about Dominion’s role in rigging machines during the 2020 election.

The settlement doesn’t require an apology or admission of making false claims, but a PBS NewsHour reporter said that the settlement amount, $787.5 million, might convey both. A large sum for a defamation case, the amount is just under half the ask, presumably so Fox can report that the company settled for “less than half.”

Fox’s statement refers to “this dispute with Dominion,” as if the two companies simply disagreed, and Fox wasn’t the one sued. The company also emphasizes the public value of the settlement: “instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, [it] allows the country to move forward from these issues.” Maybe, but companies settle lawsuits for one primary reason: they believe they will lose.

By this evening, the Fox News website showed no sign of the decision—only the stories shown here. One short news story focused on the agreement and the judge’s positive comments about the attorneys. I found a statement at the bottom of the website under links for About, Media Relations, Press Releases. Overall, the company scarcely demonstrates accountability and humility—or learning from its mistakes. One interpretation of its “continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards” is that nothing will change.

Students might be interested in this story and can discuss whether Fox should have done anything differently from an ethical perspective or, perhaps, from a PR perspective.

Although far from perfect, one comparison is McKinsey’s statement about its involvement with Purdue Pharma and the opioid crisis.

---

NEW YORK – April 18, 2023 — FOX News Media announced today that a settlement was reached in the Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit.

In making the announcement, the network said, “We are pleased to have reached a settlement of our dispute with Dominion Voting Systems. We acknowledge the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false. This settlement reflects FOX’s continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards. We are hopeful that our decision to resolve this dispute with Dominion amicably, instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, allows the country to move forward from these issues.”

FOX News Media operates the FOX News Channel (FNC), FOX Business Network (FBN), FOX News Digital, FOX News Audio, FOX News Books, the direct-to-consumer streaming services FOX Nation and FOX News International and the free ad-supported television service FOX Weather. Currently the number one network in all of cable, FNC has also been the most watched television news channel for more than 21 consecutive years, while FBN ranks among the top business channels on cable. Owned by Fox Corporation, FOX News Media reaches nearly 200 million people each month.

###

Cornell Messages About Trigger Warnings

Cornell University’s Student Assembly voted unanimously for faculty to include trigger warnings, but the Administration rejected the mandate. Business communication students can analyze the Cornell students’ resolution and the university’s email response.

The student resolution states: “Urging university officials to require instructors who present graphic traumatic content that may trigger the onset of symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) to provide advance notice to students and refrain from penalizing students who opt out of exposure to such content.” Evidence includes research about PTSD and discussion about the value of advanced warnings. The resolution concludes: “Student Assembly implores all instructors to provide content warnings on the syllabus for any traumatic content that may be discussed, including but not limited to: sexual assault, domestic violence, self-harm, suicide, child abuse, racial hate crimes, transphobic violence, homophobic harassment, xenophobia.”

In the Administration’s response, President Martha Pollack and Provost Michael I. Kotlikoff reject the recommendation because it “would infringe on our core commitment to academic freedom and freedom of inquiry, and are at odds with the goals of a Cornell education.” They link to the university’s value of “Free and Open Inquiry and Expression” but acknowledge that certain warnings are “common courtesy” and that “contextualizing” content may be appropriate.

Conservative news organizations supported the Administration and criticized students for the proposal. With its own evidence, The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote an opinion piece, not missing a chance to denounce DEI efforts: “Cornell’s position is good news, but these bad ideas will recur as long as the diversity, equity and inclusion bureaucracy governs academia, pushing the notion that honest speech and debate are traumatic. If universities want to reclaim real intellectual openness on campus, they have to help students get comfortable with being uncomfortable.” Cornell’s Administration might agree with the last part of that argument.

Several character dimensions are illustrated in these examples. We might say that students demonstrated courage with their resolution, and the Administration demonstrated integrity by being consistent with university values. Some might believe Administrators lack compassion for students and are failing to hold faculty accountable, while others might say the university holds everyone accountable for inquiry and learning. It’s complicated and could lead to a good class discussion.

Miami Beach Tries to Curtail Spring Break

Students might be interested in analyzing a video of the mayor of Miami Beach instituting a midnight curfew. Dan Gelber’s message comes after two fatal shootings, which he puts into broader context: “As is the case with most serious crime in our city, both shootings were between visitors to Miami Beach and did not involve residents.” Using anaphora as a rhetorical device, he also said, “We don’t ask for Spring Break in our city. We don’t want Spring Break in our city.”

The mayor describes the rapid police response but says police action would never be enough considering “the volume [sic] of people in our city, the unruly nature of too many, and the presence of guns.” He demonstrates accountability and courage with a clear plan despite the risks: a midnight curfew on South Beach within a defined area. The rules are clear, and the mayor refers to the city website for more details.

Mayor Gelber wards off criticism by saying they are within their legal rights. He apologizes for the “disruption and inconvenience” but could acknowledge more specifically the potential negative impact on businesses and residents.

Students may find his delivery interesting, for example, his impassioned speech, word emphasis, and gestures. The setting, his attire, and his choosing to reach a script also reflect on the mayor’s credibility and are worthy discussion topics.

Allbirds Admits Mistakes

Allbirds provides a good example of accountability and humility. No executive likes to discuss disappointing quarterly results, but Joey Zwillinger, co-founder and co-CEO, admitted mistakes, which could improve his credibility for future plans.

On the Q4 2022 earnings call, Zwillinger acknowledged “missteps”:

However, in this journey, we also made some missteps:

1) We overemphasized products that extended beyond our core DNA, and as a result, some products and colors have had narrower appeal than expected.

2) Because we were spending significant time and resources on these new products that did not resonate well, we under-invested in our core consumers’ favorite products.

3) Finally we did not increase our brand awareness to the level that we anticipated.

These communications aren’t quite “bad-news message” because they aren’t announcements, which is why Zwillinger is smart to discuss problems openly: they are already quite obvious to investors. One of my favorite lines is, “As we made those adjacent product development decisions, we unfortunately lost a bit of sight of what our core consumer fell in love with us for in the first place and what they continue to want from us.”

With Zwillinger’s humility—his willingness to admit and learn from mistakes—he inspires confidence that Allbirds can get back to its core products and customers. Zwillinger makes the mistakes sound fixable; they sound like an over-reach that didn’t work out, a bad color choice that can be painted over. Other brands might have a tougher time communicating failure if problems are insurmountable or decisions are irreversible.

Lesson Learned: Don't Use AI in Sensitive Situations

The Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) at Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, used ChatGPT to generate an email about the Michigan State campus shooting, and it wasn’t received well. This story illustrates issues of accountability (administrators taking responsibility), but failing compassion in a time of tragedy and failing integrity (consistency).

The email referred to “shootings,” which is not accurate. Otherwise, it sounds like boilerplate, but not that much different from typical emails a campus community receives in these types of situations. Compare that email to one sent from the vice provost and dean of students, which sounds more emotional but is still common.

Perhaps the only giveaway was a line at the bottom:

(“Paraphrase from OpenAI’s ChatGPT AI language model, personal communication, February 15, 2023.”)

On the one hand, I admire the writers’ honesty, doing what faculty are increasingly asking students to do: to identify whether and how they use AI for their writing. But of course, the choice reflects poor judgment.

Student backlash was swift and fierce. Using words like “disgusting” and “sick and twisted,” students called on administrators to “Do more. Do anything. And lead us into a better future with genuine, human empathy, not a robot.” A senior said, “Would they do this also for the death of a student, faculty, or staff member? Automating messages on grief and crisis is the most on-the-nose, explicit recognition that we as students are more customers than a community to the Vanderbilt administration. The fact it’s from the office of EDI might be the cherry on top.”

University officials responded quickly. In a follow-up email to students, an EDI dean wrote, “While we believe in the message of inclusivity expressed in the email, using ChatGPT to generate communications on behalf of our community in a time of sorrow and in response to a tragedy contradicts the values that characterize Peabody College. As with all new technologies that affect higher education, this moment gives us all an opportunity to reflect on what we know and what we still must learn about AI.” Could ChatGPT have written that too?

This is a precarious time for universities, as faculty grapple with how to use AI tools and what policies best serve students and academic goals. Using AI as a starting point for such a sensitive message may never be acceptable, and it’s certainly too soon now. Faculty will have a difficult time enforcing AI policies if they use tools in ways that contradict the spirit of their own guidelines.

FDA Suggests Less Lead in Baby Food

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued guidance for baby food manufacturers, and the messages serve as good examples of reports and persuasion:

• Action Levels for Lead in Food Intended for Babies and Young Children: Draft Guidance for Industry. This is a text report that students could analyze for organization, writing style, evidence, data visualization (or lack there of), etc.

• Federal Register Notice. This legal-sounding document explains how to submit comments, either by “electronic submission” or “written/paper submission,” an archaic-sounding process. People also can order paper copies of the draft guidance, something you might do in 1970: “Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request.”

Several times, on the website and within in each document, the agency reminds us, “Contains Nonbinding Recommendations Draft-Not for Implementation.” The agency further describes the “guidance”:

In general, FDA’s guidance documents do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities. Instead, guidances describe FDA’s current thinking on a topic and should be viewed only as recommendations, unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited. The use of the word should in FDA guidances means that something is suggested or recommended, but not required.

The approach attempts to involve industry and consumer groups, who likely have a lot to say about the FDA’s data and recommendations. In the introductory website text, the agency says it considers the goals “achievable by industry when control measures are taken to minimize the presence of lead.” We’ll see whether others agree. Already, one consumer group weighed in, saying the guidance “doesn’t go far enough,” while Gerber and other companies are “reviewing” the proposal.

M&M Acknowledges "Polarizing" Spokescandies

M&M explained the decision to eliminate “spokescandies”—cartoon images of the candy. The situation is delicate: Fox News anchors criticized the company’s “woke” M&Ms, and Tucker Carlson seemed particularly offended by Purple, which a Mars Wrigley spokesperson explained in September:

“We’re really excited about Purple because she’s designed to represent acceptance and inclusivity. We want her to be known for her earnest self-expression, keen self-awareness, authenticity, and competence.”

The company acknowledged but didn’t quite strike back against the controversy—or criticism of the previous push for inclusivity in January (see press release). This tweet downplays the original campaign (“We weren’t sure if anyone would even notice”) and jokes, “even a candy’s shoes can be polarizing.”

After backlash from the initial campaign, the spokeperson also tried to shake off the controversy: “We were thrilled to a large extent because it reminded us how iconic our brands are—that people care so deeply about M&M’s and the characters.”

I’m curious how students assess these comments. The company took a stand—and then seemed to back off. After the initial push for “fun,” the tweet reads formally in parts (“take an indefinite pause from the spokescandies”). Maybe students can think of a more creative way to retire the candies, one that demonstrates more accountability and courage. Could Maya Rudolph have done something funny?

Or maybe the company didn’t have to say or do anything differently, as a Forbes writer suggests? Or maybe a candy company should just make great, classic candy and not try to “bring people together”?

Messages About FAA Outage

A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) outage delayed flights Wednesday morning. As we might expect, the agency posted minimal web communication. With the heading FAA NOTAM Statement, we see a series of updates that apparently only I read: they don’t seem to have any particular audience. But the last message addresses the main concern—that the outage was not caused by a cyberattack.

For his part, Pete Buttigieg went public. In an MSNBC interview, he reassured the public that systems were back online. He also said, "When there's an issue on the government side of the house, when there's an issue with FAA, we're gonna own it, we're gonna understand it, and we're gonna make very clear what's needed in order to fix it and go after that plan." In case you were wondering, he said, “Our number 1 priority is safety.” I was hoping for something a bit more original.

Airlines were left to communicate with their customers. Students could compare airline messages to see how they handle the bad news and how easily customers can find information about flights.

United: I found this message under the tab “Travel Issue” at the top of the page. The following paragraph began that page, with more links and resources following.

“The FAA has lifted their nationwide ground stop and United has resumed operations. Customers may continue to see some delays and cancellations as we work to restore our schedule and should check the United app or united.com for the latest information about their individual flight. United has activated a travel waiver for any customers who need to change their plans, including offering refunds for customers who no longer want to travel. Customers who would like to receive a refund can visit united.com/refund to submit their request.”

American: I clicked on “Travel Information” and scrolled half-way down the page to find this “Travel Alerts” tab. But the link led to issues other than the FAA outage.

Delta: I see no information about the outage. Maybe if I searched for a scheduled flight, I would get a targeted message, but nothing is apparent on the website. However, I do see this generic message at the top of the homepage, which might be an established part of the site.

For how long should airlines keep issue-specific information prominently on their site? Why did United choose to call out the FAA? These and other topics about airline flight communications would make good class discussions.